L.J. Levine

The defendants (Owners) successfully moved for security for costs against the plaintiff (2232117 Ontario Inc.) under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the corporate plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.

The motion also required leave under subsection 67(2) of the Construction Act.

The plaintiff conceded the threshold onus regarding insufficient assets but argued the order would be unjust due to a meritorious claim and tactical purpose.

The court found the merits neutral and no evidence of tactical purpose.

Considering the equitable imbalance where the Owners had posted security for the plaintiff's lien but had no security for their defence costs, the court found an order for security for costs to be just.

The plaintiff was ordered to post $48,000 in security for costs on a staged basis and pay $4,000 in motion costs.

Two actions were tried together regarding a 50-acre parcel of land.

In the first action, the plaintiff claimed $100,000 plus interest on a promissory note forming part of the consideration for the sale of a one-half interest in the property to the defendant company.

In the second action, the defendant company claimed the plaintiff and her husband made fraudulent misrepresentations to induce the purchase.

The court dismissed the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, finding no such representations were made and the purchaser had ample opportunity to review the transaction details.

The court upheld the validity of the promissory note and awarded judgment to the plaintiff for $100,000 plus prejudgment interest.